Re: [PATCH] setup: warn about un-enabled extensions

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
>>> If you don't mind, I was already going to squash Junio's commit into
>>> mine (almost completely replacing mine) but I could add a small
>>> commit on top that provides the following improvement to the error
>>> message:
>>
>> I don't mind at all. I'd just like to know that v2.28.0 avoids confusing
>> users in the same was as v2.28.0-rc0 confused me.
> 
> In a nearby thread, Jonathan Nieder raised an interesting approach
> to avoid confusing users, which I think (if I am reading him
> correctly) makes sense (cf. <20200714040616.GA2208896@google.com>)
> 
> What if we accept the extensions the code before the topic in
> question that was merged in -rc0 introduced the "confusion" accepts
> even in v0?  If we see extensions other than those handpicked and
> grandfathered ones (which are presumably the ones we add later and
> support in v1 and later repository versions) in a v0 repository, we
> keep ignoring.  Also we'd loosen the overly strict code that
> prevents upgrading from v0 to v1 in the presence of any extensions
> in -rc0, so that the grandfathered ones will not prevent the
> upgrading.
> 
> The original reasoning behind the strict check was because the users
> could have used extensions.frotz for their own use with their own
> meaning, trusting that Git would simply ignore it, and an upgrade to
> later version in which Git uses extensions.frotz for a purpose that
> is unrelated to the reason why these users used would just break the
> repository.  
> 
> But the ones that were (accidentally) honored in v0 couldn't have
> been used by the users for the purposes other than how Git would use
> them anyway, so there is no point to make them prevent the upgrade
> of the repository version from v0 to v1.
> 
> At least, that is how I understood the world would look like in
> Jonathan's "different endgame".
> 
> What do you three (Dscho, Derrick and Jonathan) think?